A_B_C

Thank you for your answer, Garry. 😀 It takes me wonder that nobody really seems to be bothered by this. Let me provide an even simpler example. In the following table, try copying Green to Blue, then Red and to Yellow. The results are unexpected, at least to me. Copying Green to Blue works nicely. But you cannot select the red cells, copy them (or their contents plus attributes) to the clipboard, then select the yellow cells, and paste. The result is highly unexpected, and highly unusable, if you ask me. 😕 Strange.mov

I guess merged cells should be considered single cells, as far as their content is concerned. You would count row-wise top to bottom, each row from left to right (at least in LTR script contexts). Vertically merged cells might also find their logical place in the counting sequence then. And if there are not enough cells, then Publisher could either add a new row or truncate the clipboard contents to the available number of cells. But before we get into “What happens, if …” questions, please take a look at the video I shared at the beginning of this thread. Does the result of my pasting operation seem logical or desirable from a usability point of view? — Regardless of which cells I select before pasting, Publisher just appends the entire table (except for cell A, which wasn’t copied to the clipboard) starting from the first cell of the selection I made. If I was actually interested in getting this result, I would just grow the table manually and make a different selection. I think Publisher should honor the selections I make before pasting contents to a table.

Thank you Garry, for your answer! 🙂 I’ll check whether data merge can help in this instance, but … hmm … to my understanding, this is such a basic operation, it should be possible without going through data merge or similar. I feel it should be a matter of cut and paste. I fear you are right, Publisher will always grow the table instead of just pasting the contents into the selected cells. If that’s the case, I think I will have to post this as a feature request. 🙁

Hi there, please have a look at the attached illustration. Suppose you want to insert the letter B in the cell right to the cell containing A and for that purpose shift the contents of all other cells by one cell, without growing or shrinking the table itself: Is there a way to achieve that, preferably all at once? Whenever I try to select, cut, and paste cells, the table will grow (see below). I know you can go the tedious way, cut and paste H to cell <3,2>, then G to <3,1>, then E, F to <2,2>, <2,3> respectively, then D to <2,1>, and finally C to <1,3>. That is, you can proceed row-wise, but honestly, this is very cumbersome, when you have tables with lots of data, where you just want to insert and shift cell contents. So please, if someone had a solution to this problem, I’d be more than happy to know. Alex Table.mov

Again … what a wonderful work! 😀

Love the new theme! Congratulations, Patrick! 😀

Hi there, I don’t know if that has been reported already, but when you select a text style here (1), and rename the style afterwards, the change isn’t reflected in (1). In other words, the connection to the style is lost, and the table gets the default text style, when the table style is applied. Thank you for having a look. 😀 Alex

Well, it’s pretty common that the blinking cursor exceeds the boundaries of a text frame, bleyden. Your glyphs will often do as well, as the ascender of the glyphs belonging to the first line of a text frame will usually coincide with the top border of this frame (I say “usually,” since you could be using a baseline shift or a baseline grid relative to the spread, in which case this coincidence may not happen). And the blinking cursor as well as the selection highlight extend up to the font bounding box. So this is a pretty normal situation. I wouldn’t bother too much about it. 🙂

Thank you! So glad that this issue is out of the way. It’s incredible how much one relies on grouping … 😁

Thank you so much! 😀

I’m sorry to say that, but this is a terrible issue. I hope the 1.9.1 update will arrive very soon in the App store. 🙁

Same here. Exactly as described by @kaffeeundsalz.

Agree. 😀

I’d probably separate the PDF to single pages in an external application. There are plenty of free or inexpensive options available for doing this on Windows. Then you can use File > Place …, select all your single-page PDFs in the dialogue, and you’ll get the useful Place Images panel that allows you to simply add one PDF after another. 😀 (If you have single-page PDFs, still another option would be data merge, I guess. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time to test it with documents so far, but it should work.)

Yes! PDF Passthrough is getting useful! Thank you so much … 😀

The Resource Manager with linked resources is a very welcome addition, Matt! Awesome work with the 1.9 series so far! 😀

Kevin, I fear the only (?) way you can address this issue currently will be by (a) putting your shape inside a group, (b) applying the effect to the shape, but (c) the fade to the group. I don’t know whether anyone has suggested this workaround to you, but should that be the case, just disregard my post. 😀

“Years of life and lost opportunities”: I get what you mean, though I wouldn’t describe myself as depending on a piece of software that much … 😉

Agreed. 😀

That’s a great real-life example! 😀 And I’d support your conclusion. Also not meant as mere criticism in any way, but hopefully received as some sort of constructive feedback! 😊

I absolutely agree with the point you made earlier in this thread, Jens! 🙂 I just meant to provide an example that can explain why it is essential to have the non-interpreted version of a placed PDF displayed in Affinity Publisher. In my example, I exported a PDF with Erica One from Publisher, disabled the font, and placed the PDF back in a different Publisher document. Now, what can you do with the placed file, when the typeface is replaced by Lucida Grande? There is no way to create a consistent design context in which the placed PDF could play a role. You simply don’t see what you get. I fear the current approach will be met with strong reservations, should it find its way to the release version. I must also confess, I didn’t understand completely what Adam said in his earlier reply. As far as I understand, the development team would like to stick to the idea that the PDF interpreter is responsible for displaying the placed PDF on screen. And to achieve WYSIWYG, they are planning to improve the PDF interpreter up to the point where the interpreted PDF is visually identical to the source PDF, in particular by finding a solution for embedded fonts. Of course, if that’s achievable, it would be a satisfactory solution. But I think it’s clear that PDF passthrough, in its current state, would cover a rather limited range of use cases in real-world contexts.

I do as well. Absolutely. There is a essential difference between just placing a PDF in a Publisher document and embedding a PDF into the design context of a Publisher document. If we were talking about placing PDFs in the first sense only, the current implementation would surely be sufficient. But as soon as you have to refer to the visual contents of the placed PDF by any kind of design elements, you are lost. As for a hypothetical example, suppose you are asked to add some explanatory texts to a design specimen of a new typeface without having access to the typeface itself yet. Then Publisher will replace the typeface by Lucida Grande (see below). So, how are you going to complete your task on the basis of the current implementation? How could you possibly determine the correct position of the blue line that serves as a pointer in my example? Seems difficult, right? 😉

Adam, I’m excited about PDF passthrough! But why do you display the interpreted preview in the Affinity document, and not the actual output? That is thoroughly confusing. Is there a technical constraint that motivates this aspect of the implementation? 🙂

Other that that: there are some fantastic new features in this. 😊

Have to agree. If auto-updating presets was an option, I definitely wouldn’t use it … 😊 (Oh, and while you’re at it: what about an option of locking the workspace? That is, when the workspace is locked, it’s impossible to resize or tear off panels.)